Psychosocial risks: what does a team’s silence mean?
Within the SHR — Swiss Human Resources programme on psychosocial risks, raising concerns deserves attention in its own right, distinct from addressing them. The management question is specific: how should an absence of warnings be interpreted when speaking up may carry an interpersonal risk?
What the literature establishes
Amy C. Edmondson (1999, Administrative Science Quarterly) identifies an association between team psychological safety and learning behaviours. Psychological safety refers to a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, including admitting a mistake or asking for help. This finding sheds light on the conditions for speaking up; it does not directly demonstrate the prevention of mental health problems.
The mechanism of organisational silence
Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison and Frances J. Milliken (2000, Academy of Management Review) propose a theoretical model of organisational silence. Managerial beliefs and organisational practices can foster a collective perception that speaking up is futile or dangerous. Silence therefore does not necessarily indicate an absence of difficulties: it may also reflect anticipated consequences of voicing them.
The premature conclusion
It is sometimes inferred that encouraging everyone to speak up would be enough to prevent psychosocial risks. These studies support neither that promise nor the assumption that more voices being heard means working conditions have deteriorated. An increase in reports may also reflect greater ease in raising concerns; it must be interpreted alongside their content and the subsequent response. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence and reporting arrangements do not tell us
The field study on psychological safety does not establish general causality, while the model of silence sets out theoretical propositions rather than testing an intervention. In practice, a reporting channel proves neither that employees feel protected nor that difficulties are being corrected. In small teams, promising anonymity without being able to guarantee it may also undermine trust.
A practical check in Sion
In Sion, an organisation working in hydropower, healthcare, viticulture or Alpine tourism could test the same protocol, adapted to its working hours and seasonal patterns. Over one month, it would record reported work-related difficulties in a restricted-access register, then calculate the proportion receiving a response within a previously announced timeframe that specifies a person responsible for follow-up and a next step. Collective feedback would contain only aggregated, non-identifying data; if no concerns were reported, the ratio would remain incalculable rather than being interpreted as a success. This check, which could be used in SHR training, measures the traceability of management’s response, not the disappearance of risks or the actual quality of their resolution. To go further: explore the Psychosocial Risks training in Sion in the canton of Valais, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Psychosocial Risks in Sion
- psychosocial risks
- Sion
- research
- training sion